Second Edition BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 44, 27 June 1913, Page 6

Second Edition BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

MB SKERBETT’S RESOLUTIONS

In the course of the discussion at the Bank of New Zealand shareholders’ meeting yesterday Mr Skerrett said the bank had reached a stage when it was clear from the balancesheet that it was in a position to pay off the million debentures guaranteed by the Government. He declared that at this stage the question arose : First, as to whether it was not clear that a new ■ condition of had arisen which absolutely necessitated the re-adjustment and review of the relations of the bank to the Government ; second, whether on that re-ad-justment the Government was entitled to further interest in the capital of the bank, despite the positive and honorable arrangement made in 1903; third, the question of the increase of capital. Tho chairman would acknowledge that the Board had received from the shareholders, through Mr 0. P. Skerrett, notice of certain resolutions 1 he proposed to move at the meeting. , Mr Beauchamp replied that the resolutions affected the capitals question, which, as stated in his opening’remarks, “would be brought up for discussion at a meeting which has been called by the shareholders for July 4. I may explain that the Board were requested by the representatives of the shareholders to convene a special meeting for the purpose,” he said, “but being advised by the bank’s solicitors that the shareholders had no power to increase the bank’s capital without legislative authority, and that any resolutions affecting the bank’s capital, if proposed and passed would be void, the Board felt itself unable to call a meeting for the purpose mentioned. Certain of tho shareholders then acting under the powers convened in the deed of , settlement, themselves convened a meeting for Julv 4 ” ! Mi* Beauchamp then left the chair, and the meeting, as reported in our issue of yesterday. The legal opinion referred to held U R that as»shareholders had' -not had a notice, that the matters set out in Mr Skerrett’s resolutions are to be brought before the meeting on June 26, the resolutions, if passed, would be invalid, and ! it was. therefore, the duty of the chairman tp refuse to put them to the meeting. “We have been unable,” it said, “to discover in the deed of settlement any power in a general meeting of proprietors to pass these resolutions. The shareholders hav6 no power to interfere with the management of the business conferred on the Board by clause 3. It would be necessary for the Board or the shareholders, ifi desired, to carry out the purpose intended by Mr Skerrett, to convene special general meetings of ■ the proprietors under clauses 78 and 85 Of the deed of settlement.”